[Arran]

Now, on Zenith. I fully acknowledge that there are lots of Zenith afficionados among us, and Zenith has become more of a cult than any other brand of radio I can think of. Anything said about Zenith that's not a literary genuflect, causes a flame war. More about that below.

In the thirties, tube count was the measure of radio performance. Companies, like Midwest sold radio chassis (and cabinets, if desired), riding on tube count. They usually had push-pull pparallel output stages, and two rectifiers, rather than one larger one (Wait 'til I get to Zenith!), so they stacked up a lot of tubes for the impressionable customer. Then, International Kadette broke the camel's back with a "10 tube" table model set, using as many ballast resistor tubes as functioning tubes. I understand that the Federal Trade commission, gave them a whippin' for misleading advertising.

Now, when we look at E.H. Scott, we see the most superbly engineered radio chassis in history. If a tube was required to perform a function in the chassis, it was used. Indeed, the tube count was large, but it could never have been questioned why a tube was employed. Scott was the leader in high fidelity audio, and in the 23 tube all-wave set, used Push-pull parallel 2A3 tubes in the power amp stage. You simply cannot challenge Scott's engineering and avoid being considered a fool.

Now again, on Zenith. Didn't bloat tube counts? Look at the Stratosphere. The power amp stage has eight 45's in parallel push-pull. Didn't those guys know about 2A3's? Is it possible that Zenith wanted to ace the rest of the industry in some way? Then, in subsequent years, they were well known for using two 6X5 rectifiers, instead of a single 5Y4. They also had a reputation for under-rated power transformers. Power amp stages in several Zeniths had multiple tubes in a "dynamic coupled" circuit, using a 6P5, and 6AC5 each side of the push-pull output. Nothing wrong there of course, but maybe another case for tube bloat. Zenith radios have a mystique that causes a unique affection for them. Is it possible it's because a family of farmers on TV had one?

Now, if you want to see the grand daddy of tube count bloat, look at the 37 tube Crosley "WLW" set. If you study the schematic, you'll see the silliest accumulation of tubes in one cabinet ever offered. And, the receiver section of that set is most mediocre. The circuit design of the set is nauseating, at least to me.

In 1936, Philco built their model 680, a magnificent creation. As with Scott, every tube in the set was there for a reason, and none were added just to use more tubes. The same was true for RCA, Stromberg-Carlson, Freed-Eisemann, and so on. RCA and Philco were Zenith's prime rivals. Not even Philco could surpass RCA in technological innovations, but Philco was able to stand up to RCA with Hazeltine's engineering. Zenith never pioneered anything technological, thus my use of "following". And, there is nothing wrong with that either. Zenith did make some fine chassis; good performers. I have a few in my collection, and love them. But, standing alongside Philco and RCA, Zenith doesn't stand as tall; that's all. Zenith did rise to its greatest heights in radio receivers, with its Trans-Oceanic sets. I have one of each iteration of those glorious creations, from first to last. RCA ,Philco, and everybody else were the followers there.

I understand, possibly better than most, that every one of us is differently attracted to his or her own artifact. I don't expect anyone else to go ballistic over the same stuff I do, and have done for about 65 years. Nor should anyone be vexed if I don't worship his holy grails. It's fun for me for my own reasons; that's all.

I did some figuring once on tube usage and figured that in terms of dealing with an AM all wave set you could pretty much do everything with every bell and whistle that you could think of with maybe 18-19 tubes, in most cases with less then that. That's with double conversion, extra RF amps, extra IF amps, volume expanders, AFC, and push pull parallel outputs. Not really any reason to add any more unless you were looking for more all out Wattage in the power output stages. Eight type #45 tubes seems stupid, like you mentioned did they not hear of 2A3s, 6A3s, or 46s or 47s for that matter?
I have to agree with Zeniths having a bit of a cult following, many seem to be gilded junkpiles built for bottom dollar to be impressive, why else would you paint a chassis and speaker frame gold? In spite of the rantings over line voltage being hard on transformers on the other forum, Zeniths seem to be the ones most afflicted by this problem, ditto with the 6X5s, none of my non Zenith radios have an overheating problem or transformers incinerated by 6X5s. But then again they had a car salesman and accountants running the company, the head of Philco was a least an engineer, a chemical one, but still an engineer, Sarnoff wasn't an engineer but he knew that it was the gateway to new markets so let them go to it. In my opinion Zenith was one of the few where their engineering and build quality actually improved after the war. Unlike most sets out there the Trans-Oceanics are one of the few that is not overrated and is sought because it was a good radio, but in the T.O's case they let the engineers do their job instead of the marketing department.
Best Regards
Arran